Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-137092-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 14:28:19 +0000
In-Reply-To: <19db06082aff01540819d86d4ca839446c967db7.camel@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20240320001542.3203871-1-seanjc@google.com> <ecaf87b40d6da2ca39a5eaf94d2efded2ae3368c.camel@infradead.org>
 <ZhR74WgWxO4MQcbl@google.com> <19db06082aff01540819d86d4ca839446c967db7.camel@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <ZhVQg8mKr2VIQptT@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: Fix for a mostly benign gpc WARN
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	syzbot+106a4f72b0474e1d1b33@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, 
	Paul Durrant <paul@xen.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 16:21 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2024-03-19 at 17:15 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > Fix a bug found by syzkaller, thanks to a new WARN sanity check, wh=
ere KVM
> > > > marks a gfn_to_pfn_cache as active without actually setting gpc->gp=
a or any
> > > > other metadata.=C2=A0 On top, harden against _directly_ setting gpc=
->gpa to KVM's
> > > > magic INVALID_GPA, which would also fail the sanity check.
> > > >=20
> > > > Sean Christopherson (3):
> > > > =C2=A0 KVM: Add helpers to consolidate gfn_to_pfn_cache's page spli=
t check
> > > > =C2=A0 KVM: Check validity of offset+length of gfn_to_pfn_cache pri=
or to
> > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 activation
> > > > =C2=A0 KVM: Explicitly disallow activatating a gfn_to_pfn_cache wit=
h
> > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 INVALID_GPA
> > >=20
> > > It looks like these conflict with
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20240227115648.3104-9-dwmw2@infradead.org=
/
> > >=20
> > > Want to arrange them to come after it?
> >=20
> > Very belated, yes.=C2=A0 Though by the time you read this, they should =
be in
> > kvm-x86/next.
>=20
> Did that 'yes' mean 'no'? Because your three patches are in, but you
> didn't arrange them to come after my 'clean up rwlock abuse' patch, as
> you seemed to be saying 'yes' to...

Doh, I misread your question, multiple times.  I thought you were asking if=
 I
wanted you to arrange your patches after this series.

Your series goes on top because I want to land this series in 6.9 to fix th=
e
syzkaller splat (which was effectively introduced in 6.9), whereas your pat=
ch is
6.10 material.